We've launched the new forums! Read more here

No Such Thing as Bad Publicity?

S

SethO

IXOYE
Joined
Jul 28, 2009
Messages
11,241
Reaction score
123
I have been thinking of the term "bad for golf" lately. With the craziness that has been going on with players getting DQ'd by viewers, big name players' infidelity issues, popular (read notorious) players suing charities and our new golden boy going off on twitter on a "failed golfer." Most of these things were headlines and brought extra attention to golf. It is a travesty in most of our eyes, but is it really bad for the popularity of the game? The common saying is that "There is no such thing as bad publicity," but do you believe that?

Edit: Is this bad for the PGA/LPGA tours?
 
Last edited:
I believe you should simply ask Tigger, his bad pub cost him millions in endorsements, so on a personal level he would definitely say yes there is bad publicity.
 
There is no bad publicity...to a point. Its not golf related but if you look at Demi Moore, she released the photo of herself 100% naked and pregnant right before the movie Indecent Proposal came out. It was obvious that the movie had to be saved or else it would flop. Demi got alot of negative pub for it but the movie did really well. In other instances, Tiger's thing/situation goes over the top. I dont think Golf is viewed the same in the public eye as it was before the catastrophe that was Tiger.
 
Of course there is bad publicity. Every professional is under a microscope and no matter what they do they will be looked at differently by someone.
 
I am thinking less of publicity for an individual, and more for the PGA or LPGA tour.
 
SethO said:
I have been thinking of the term "bad for golf" lately. With the craziness that has been going on with players getting DQ'd by viewers, big name players' infidelity issues, popular (read notorious) players suing charities and our new golden boy going off on twitter on a "failed golfer." Most of these things were headlines and brought extra attention to golf. It is a travesty in most of our eyes, but is it really bad for the popularity of the game? The common saying is that "There is no such thing as bad publicity," but do you believe that?
Click to expand...

I've never really heard that. I thought for a long time that John Daly was a lowlife, and his suit against a childrens charity proved me right. That is BAD publicity, but he had/has it coming. This is just one example.
 
HoosierGolfer said:
I've never really heard that. I thought for a long time that John Daly was a lowlife, and his suit against a childrens charity proved me right. That is BAD publicity, but he had/has it coming. This is just one example.
Click to expand...

I've definitely heard it also along the lines of "NO press is bad press, and even bad press is good press." I think to an extent it actually good for the PGA because they're being talked about. But to an extent it can definitely be a bad thing.

Take today's Sports news for example. The news of the NFL and free agency alone is crushing anything and everything, with the rare exception of Tiger Woods playing next week, and his friend being on the bag. The only other sports news that you'll get today might be if a Blockbuster trade came in MLB with the trade deadline being this weekend.

Or it could be my sports market.

All in all, yes there is bad publicity, BUT I think it takes quite a bit of ill will for it to reach that point and all in all the PGA hasn't crossed that line in my opinion... yet.
 
I think that the only bad publicity, that the general public is aware of, is tiger-gate. All the other stuff that goes on is news pretty much confined to us golf fans, and us, as hard-core golf fans, don't let these minor instances influence our views of the tours. At least that's how I look at it, YMMV.
 
What about the Rush Limbaugh effect? I hear that a lot of Left Wingers listen to his show to see how, to them, insane he is. I think that people want to see for themselves anything that is making news if it strikes enough interest.

*I don't have an opinion on Rush Limbaugh. I just used him as an example because most people know who he is.
 
It's a good question, and in my opinion one that's very difficult to answer objectively for users on here. That is due to every one of us having an interest in the sport in the first place, and having more than the average amount of information to base our opinions on.

I think someone who doesn't normally follow golf would have an interesting view on this.
 
Great question and thread Setho, I'm kind of stumped to a degree for a real answer. I really think bad publicity CAN be more harmful to certain mediums than others. Take food service as an example, all it would take these days would be one person getting really sick or worst and the report hitting the news wire could very easily shut down most or all of an entire chain. Yet, people like Rush, Hanity and John Daly make their living off of being as controversial as possible, they NEED to be negative or they couldn't exsist it seems.
 
I think initially bad press will jumo up and bite you in the arse. TW loses Millions in endorsements but still highest paid athlete and some what still the man in some circles. JD falls on his faceyear after year but gets TV shows, sponsor exemptions and is loved by the reguler guy (most),Rory blurts on Twitter and gets a media slap on the hand but still loved. Kobe accused of sexual assualt but back on top of the world. Lebron (the decision) number one selling jersey, Mike Vick....you know the rest.
My point is this, Bad press may hurt in intially but some how if you are big enough you will bounce back. You may lose a few fans but for the most part I think it's bump in the road. Now on the other side of the coin, BAD press will kill you with those that never followed you until the story was reported. Iam sure the Mike Vick, TW KObe and other like them alienated millions with there actions, The millions that don't follow the day to day grind of sports and recreation. You could argue that these millions would have never followed them anyway, but these millions have kids and kow ppl that do like sports. The negative press could trickle down hill. So on this side of the coin, there is such a thing as bad press. Just my opinion

Edit: I should have read Setn O's origianl message closer as Smalls pointed out....Based on the behavior of the players I mentioned except for Rory bad press is bad for golf. Because the casual viewer will be turned off by the antics of a few.
 
Last edited:
Has anyone actually read the OP's intent? He's not asking about individual players but for the game of golf (or of the tours) itself:

SethO said:
I have been thinking of the term "bad for golf" lately. With the craziness that has been going on with players getting DQ'd by viewers, big name players' infidelity issues, popular (read notorious) players suing charities and our new golden boy going off on twitter on a "failed golfer." Most of these things were headlines and brought extra attention to golf. It is a travesty in most of our eyes, but is it really bad for the popularity of the game? The common saying is that "There is no such thing as bad publicity," but do you believe that?

Edit: Is this bad for the PGA/LPGA tours?
Click to expand...

SethO said:
I am thinking less of publicity for an individual, and more for the PGA or LPGA tour.
Click to expand...

I don't think that fans of the game lose any respect for the game itself when individuals bring it all down upon themselves. Just because Tiger is an adulterer and a liar and because John Daly is basically scum as well, doesn't reflect on the whole tour, in my opinion. Now if it happened to come out that 75% of all tour players were taking PED's and the commisioner and his staff were all involved in a coverup, then yeah, that would be bad for the tour. But the poor decisions by individuals don't affect the tour adversely in the public eye in my mind. At least of those who are fans in the first place.

Obviously the offenders are getting hurt by the bad publicity, but the tours? Not so much, at least opinionwise. Someone mentioned someplace about getting Eldrick back could help the TV deals, but I don't think that's related directly to this discussion.
 
Last edited:
Smallville said:
Has anyone actually read the OP's intent? He's not asking about individual players but for the game of golf (or of the tours) itself:





I don't think that fans of the game lose any respect for the game itself when individuals bring it all down upon themselves. Just because Tiger is an adulterer and a liar and because John Daly is basically scum as well, doesn't reflect on the whole tour, in my opinion. Now if it happened to come out that 75% of all tour players were taking PED's and the commisioner and his staff were all involved in a coverup, then yeah, that would be bad for the tour. But the poor decisions by individuals don't affect the tour adversely in the public eye in my mind. At least of those who are fans in the first place.
Click to expand...

Good reply Smalls. Do you think it is possible for the greater public to differentiate the Tour from its players?
 
I don't think the general public (people who don't keep up with the tour much anyway) are going to have any worse opinion of the tour because of actions of a few. They aren't fans anyway. Some will form a bad opinion of the tour because of the bad people, definitely, but as a group, I don't think it affects them much.

We can already see on this forum that those who are big fans of the offenders are going to defend their guy against anyone who talks bad about them, and I think it would be safe to say that that would go for any golf forum , not just this one.
 
Smallville said:
I don't think the general public (people who don't keep up with the tour much anyway) are going to have any worse opinion of the tour because of actions of a few. They aren't fans anyway. Some will form a bad opinion of the tour because of the bad people, definitely, but as a group, I don't think it affects them much.

We can already see on this forum that those who are big fans of the offenders are going to defend their guy against anyone who talks bad about them, and I think it would be safe to say that that would go for any golf forum , not just this one.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with this Smalls.
 
not bad at all. the more people talk about golf the better it is for the game
 
No, as 3 of those things probably isn't news outside of the golf world and then only matters to a small percentage of the golf viewers.
 
I say yes, bad publicity can hurt the tours. First, I agree (to an extent) with the general statement thrown around amongst journalists: "No news is bad news and bad news makes marvelous copy." However, it is only "marvelous" for the journalists. Look at the Tour de France for example. It is currently at some of its lowest popularity levels in recent history. I think many followers of the sport would agree that much of the decline in popularity is due directly to the bad publicity the tour received regarding numerous key cyclists being found to be doping in some form or fashion. For golf specifically, I don't think a slight twitter bomb by R-Mac is going to do any noticeable damage to the tour itself. The game is bigger than any one player. With that said, however, certain "big ticket" bad publicity events (particularly if several happen in quick succession) can, and will, make the tours suffer. And while this is simply anecdotal, I do believe that the latest Tiger Woods PGA Tour golf game had a major slide in sales after "Tigergate" as compared to previous versions. This is not the same, but interesting nonetheless.
 
Smallville said:
Has anyone actually read the OP's intent? He's not asking about individual players but for the game of golf (or of the tours) itself:

I don't think that fans of the game lose any respect for the game itself when individuals bring it all down upon themselves. Just because Tiger is an adulterer and a liar and because John Daly is basically scum as well, doesn't reflect on the whole tour, in my opinion. Now if it happened to come out that 75% of all tour players were taking PED's and the commisioner and his staff were all involved in a coverup, then yeah, that would be bad for the tour. But the poor decisions by individuals don't affect the tour adversely in the public eye in my mind. At least of those who are fans in the first place.

Obviously the offenders are getting hurt by the bad publicity, but the tours? Not so much, at least opinionwise. Someone mentioned someplace about getting Eldrick back could help the TV deals, but I don't think that's related directly to this discussion.
Click to expand...

The actions of the tour lowlife's does not make me like the tour any less. It is the actions of the individual, not the tour. There are scumbags in every profession and every walk of life. The golf tours are no different. I just change the channel when they highlight these guys. The remote control is a great invention.
 
I think it brings golf fans in deeper and the average fans may pay a little more attention to the game but at this point I really don't think its going to have a positive or a negative effect at all.
 
The origins of this phrase are interesting, to say the least!

"The idea that no publicity can do harm is clearly open to question. For someone seeking notoriety and a somewhat scandalous reputation, like Marie Lloyd and Mae West in days gone by, or Paris Hilton in our era, that may be true. The shareholders of BP and Toyota, which have both suffered falls in their market price due to worldwide publishing of their recent difficulties, may feel differently.

'There's no such thing as bad publicity' is often associated with Phineas T. Barnum, the 19th century American showman and circus owner. Barnum was a self-publicist of the first order and never missed an opportunity to present his wares to the public. Like many other supposed quotations, there's no hard evidence to link the 'bad publicity' quotation to him.

The proverbial expression began to be used in the early 20th century. The earliest version of it that I have found in print is from the US newspaper The Atlanta Constitution, January, 1915:

All publicity is good if it is intelligent.

The thought behind the proverb had been expressed earlier by Oscar Wilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.

There's no such thing as bad publicityProbably the most celebrated adapter of the expression was another great wit from the Dublin literary scene, the Irish Republican and "drinker with a writing problem", Brendan Behan. Behan's boisterous lifestyle meant that for him, more than others, there was truth in his opinion that:

There's no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary."

I had heard this expression for actors, mostly.
 
I am not sure this can been truly answered until Tiger comes back full time and starts winning again. Much of the visibility and money on tour is due to the Tiger Effect. Golf ratings were always considerably better if Tiger was in contention. If he starts winning again, and the ratings do not return, I would argue the action of one player did negatively impact the tour.
 
It's a saying more so related to show-business than it is real life. If actors, writers, and etc get bad publicity, than they're getting noticed for things they said. If Joe from down the street has the same thing happen to him, it's likely frowned upon, and nothing good comes of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top